On 12/08/2016 11:10 AM, Matthew Miller
Your stated goals are quite high level, so I would like to step back
and ask some broad questions before discussing fairly detailed
technical choices between your options.
It's my plan to explore different ideas to continue to make Fedora more
successful as measured by user and contributor growth, contributor
return on effort, and fulfillment of our mission.
I do realize that rehashing the 'rolling vs. point release'
discussion can't be made in abstract, but I always had hard time
separating technical and psychological, marketing and organizational
arguments in that debate. I think you as the leadership should be
thinking it through more clearly than I'm able to.
Specifically, I think that for someone who already has a working
Fedora installation, the point releases are a distinction without
much difference: I think the users want a smoothly running system
being continuously upgraded. They don't care if sometimes such
update takes longer and changes are deeper than usual. If all goes
well, they should always be on a usable system. As a 'reductio ad
absurdum' exercise, far out in the future, why should anyone be
excited by arrival of Fedora 139? We're treating the releases as
precious pets, but they are really doomed to become cattle :)
By the way, that's partly why I thought your historical plot was
misleading. On one of my systems, I was one of the folks responsible
for your F24 'unfulfilled potential' effect because I upgraded
directly from F23 to F25. I did not have anything against F24---life
happened, and I just simply didn't upgrade until I felt the EOL
hammer hanging over me. I think that to really look at Fedora
penetration and momentum, we'd have to only count new installs, or
at least not count upgrades within the EOL window. I don't think we
have data to do that.
On the other hand, point releases are useful for new users because
they provide the 'new product' message that is a better draw than
explaining why now is the right time to jump on a moving train. It's
mostly psychology and marketing.
Point releases are of course essential organizational focus points
for internal processes such as testing and QA, and they provide a
framework to discuss new features and deep changes. I would argue
that this is an internal consideration, except that it also might
provide a useful marketing message.
So, my TL;DR message is, think carefully what aspects are important
(technical? organizational? marketing?), what constituencies are
involved in each, what changes are desirable, how to measure their
effect, and then come up with processes to effect those changes.